Thursday, January 06, 2005

Globalization at its best and at its worst

So has anyone reading this not heard of David Holcberg's article yet? I don't think that it's online anymore, not on the original site anyway, but it reproduced the best bits in a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper, and I have seen it reported (presumably verbatim) in its entirety on Usenet, where I'm sure that it's been immortalized on Google. It that his real name? If so, he might want to change it.

In an age where we are swinging back to the classical liberal, free-market ideals of the 19th century, it appears that no one, not even the neo-cons, has the nerve to try to defend this point of view (but hopefully he won't be killed for it, I'm with Voltaire on that issue).

If any good can come out of the tsunami, it is the relatively quick response by governments who are able to do something about it. What is the point of acting like a global village if we don't act like good neighbors?

Back to the 19th century, it seemed to me that it was pure, free-market capitalism at its apex (with all the abuses and sheer inhumanity that went along with it), yet, there are those who say that it has never really been tried, which is what others say about communism. Anyone want to contribute a differing point of view?

The original article came from the Ayn Rand Institute, where they seem to be ardent capitalists. As mentioned earlier, it's probably not there anymore, but you can still check out the site.

Lastly today, some news from CNN that you cannot be indifferent to, if you have any idea who Tucker Carlson is.

No comments:

Blog Archive